Oppn. accuses BJP govt. in Odisha of ‘silence’ on disputed region with A.P 

Why in news?

There is an ongoing border dispute between Odisha and Andhra Pradesh over Kotia Gram Panchayat. Inter-state border disputes have been a continuous federal challenge for India since its independence. 

Background of the Dispute

• Genesis (1955): The dispute over the Kotia gram panchayat (consisting of over 20 villages) dates back to March 1955, when Andhra Pradesh officials attempted to collect rent from local villagers.
• Demarcation Lacunae: When Odisha was carved out of the Bihar-Odisha Province in 1936, and when Andhra State was created in 1953, several border villages in the hilly tracts of the Koraput district were not precisely demarcated.
• Failed Mediation: In the late 1960s, then-Union Home Minister Y.B. Chavan attempted to mediate between the states, but the efforts failed to bring an amicable settlement.
• Judicial Recourse (1968): Due to the breakdown of political talks, Odisha moved the Supreme Court of India in 1968 under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Legal and Constitutional Dimensions

• Article 131 (Original Jurisdiction): Odisha invoked Article 131, which gives the Supreme Court the exclusive power to resolve legal disputes between two or more state governments.
• Supreme Court Verdict (2006): The Supreme Court maintained a status quo on the region. It ruled that state boundary disputes fall within the domain of Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution, implying that a judicial resolution cannot override legislative boundaries unless explicitly altered by Parliament.
• Dual Administrative Anomaly: Because of the status quo and incomplete legislative resolution, both states simultaneously hold panchayat elections here. Consequently, residents often possess dual voter ID cards, ration cards, and welfare benefits from both Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.

Recent situation

• Competitive Federalism via Welfare: To win the loyalty of the local tribal populace, both states engage in competitive welfare delivery:
  • Andhra Pradesh escalated its welfare scheme implementations in Kotia after 2015.
  • Odisha formed an inter-departmental monitoring committee in 2018 and announced a ₹100 crore special development package for road construction and infrastructure in Kotia.
• Administrative Conflict: The announcement of rural/panchayat polls by Andhra Pradesh in these disputed villages regularly causes administrative standoffs, legal petitions, and local security alerts managed by district collectors and police heads.
• Exploitation by Left-Wing Extremism (LWE): The administrative ambiguity in border corridors historically creates a “governance deficit.” Such vacuum zones along state lines (like the Odisha-Andhra border) are frequently exploited by Maoist/Naxalite insurgent groups to set up safe havens, posing an internal security threat. 

Major Active Interstate Border Disputes in India 

1. Belagavi (Belgaum) Dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra:

• This is one of the most prominent linguistic-territorial disputes. During the reorganization of states in 1956, Belagavi and several Marathi-speaking villages were included in Mysore (now Karnataka) based on administrative boundaries. 

2. Assam vs. Northeast Border Disputes (Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh):

• These disputes stem from the carve-out of tribal states from undivided Assam during the 1960s and 1970s. The border demarcations relied heavily on British-era notifications (like the Inner Line Regulation notifications), which are contested today. 

3. Himachal Pradesh vs. Haryana dispute over Parwanoo / Pinjore region:

• Friction exists over the precise demarcation of land around the industrial town of Parwanoo and adjacent areas of Haryana’s Panchkula district, leading to revenue and administrative overlap.

4.  Punjab vs. Haryana over Chandigarh and Abohar-Fazilka:

• Apart from sharing a capital city (Chandigarh), Punjab and Haryana have a territorial dispute over the Hindi-speaking pockets of Abohar and Fazilka, which Haryana claims should have been transferred to it during the 1966 trifurcation.

Way Forward  

• Activating the Inter-State Council (ISC): Under Article 263, the ISC must be utilized as a robust platform for continuous dialogue, rather than relying solely on ad-hoc ministerial reviews.
• Zonal Councils: Re-energising the Eastern Zonal Council to foster a collaborative approach to resource sharing and administrative clarity between Odisha and Andhra Pradesh.
• Boundary Commission: Parliament can exercise its powers under Article 3 to appoint an independent, high-level Boundary Commission utilizing satellite mapping and historical data to draw clear administrative lines.
• Punchhi Commission’s Recommendations (2010): The Task Force on Centre-State Relations recommended that the Central Government should set up a permanent, standing mechanism to address interstate border friction seamlessly, integrating local police coordination to prevent border skirmishes.

Prelims Practice Question

Q. Consider the following statements regarding interstate border disputes and their resolution mechanisms in India:

1. The Supreme Court of India holds exclusive and original jurisdiction over disputes between two or more states under Article 131 of the Constitution.
2. The Zonal Councils are constitutional bodies explicitly created under Article 263 to investigate and settle border disputes.
3. The Mahajan Commission was historically set up by the Government of India to resolve boundary friction between Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

A) 1 and 2 only

B) 1 and 3 only

C) 2 and 3 only

D) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: B) 1 and 3 only

• Statement 1 is correct: Article 131 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over federal disputes. 
• Statement 2 is incorrect: Zonal Councils are statutory bodies established under the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, whereas Article 263 deals with the Inter-State Council. 
• Statement 3 is correct: The Mahajan Commission was appointed in 1966 to adjudicate the Belagavi (Belgaum) and related border contentions.

Mains Practice Question

Q. “Interstate border disputes in India are a complex mix of historical cartographic ambiguities, linguistic friction, and competitive regional politics.” In light of the recent flashpoints along various state borders, critically analyze the socio-economic and security implications of unresolved border disputes. Suggest structural and institutional reforms required to foster cooperative federalism in this regard. (250 Words / 15 Marks) 

PDF